Research and Scholarship Integrity Program
Small Group Discussion 2
Credit Attribution
Natural Sciences
Adapted from Adil E. Shamoo and David B. Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research, 2nd ed.
(Oxford: Oxford University, 2009), 108-109.
Deciding Authorship
Dr. Gumshoe is a family physician specialist conducting a clinical trial on a new treatment
for foot wounds for people with diabetes. The treatment is a cream she developed. Although all
of the compounds in the cream have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), the treatment itself has not. The FDA has classified it as an investigational combination
therapy. Dr. Gumshoe has completed the clinical trial, which has demonstrated that the new
treatment is twice as effective as current therapy for diabetic foot wounds. She is getting ready
to publish a paper and needs to decide (a) who should be an author and (b) the order of
authorship. The following people have worked on the project:









Dr. Gumshoe developed the cream, designed the experiments, interpreted the data, and
wrote the paper.
Dr. Wainwright is a pharmacist who helped Dr. Gumshoe develop the cream, interpret
the data, and edit the paper.
Dr. Sabrunama is a biostatistician who helped to design the experiments and analyze
and interpret the data and who read the paper but did not edit it for content.
Ms. Stetson is a nurse who provided treatment to patients in the study and collected
data and who read the paper but did not edit it for content.
Ms. Williams is a medical student who provided treatment to patients in the study and
collected data and who read the paper but did not edit it for content.
Mr. Gumshoe is Dr. Gumshoe's husband. He has been providing legal assistance to Dr.
Gumshoe concerning her FDA and institutional review board applications and patents
on the treatment. He read the paper and edited it for style and grammar.
Mr. Jensen is a pharmacy technician who works for Dr. Wainwright who helped to
prepare the treatment.
Dr. Chu is a colleague of Dr. Gumshoe's. He has discussed the project with her several
times over lunch. He encouraged her to initiate the clinical trial and has given her
critical feedback.
Dr. Rogers is a diabetic foot specialist. He has provided Dr. Gumshoe with tissue
samples and data that she has used in her study.
Questions
1. Who should be an author?
2. Who should receive an acknowledgment?
3. What should be the authorship order?
1
Research and Scholarship Integrity Program
Small Group Discussion 2
Credit Attribution
Natural Sciences
Adapted from Stanley G. Korenman and Allan C. Shipp, Teaching the Responsible Conduct of
Research through a Case Study Approach: A Handbook for Instructors (Association of
American Medical Colleges, 1994): 47-48.
Courtesy Authorship
Dr. Jonathan Perry, a tenured professor, used his sabbatical to visit the laboratory of Dr. Brian
Chandler, a widely published and respected senior scientist. During his stay in Dr. Chandler's
lab, Dr. Perry hoped to learn certain techniques of molecular biology that he would employ in his
own research. To afford Dr. Perry this opportunity, Dr. Chandler assigned him a leading role in a
new project that the lab was undertaking. After seven months, laboratory work on the project
was completed, and Dr. Perry returned to his own institution to begin work on a paper to report
the final results. Ultimately, many drafts of the paper were faxed back and forth between
laboratories until Dr. Perry received the penultimate version from Dr. Chandler's lab. On this
version, a new name, J. B. Martin, Ph.D., appeared among the authors listed. Dr. Perry had never
met Dr. Martin, never worked with him on any technical aspect of the project, and had never
heard his name or ideas mentioned in the laboratory meetings in which the project was planned
or the results discussed.
Dr. Perry called Dr. Chandler and questioned the addition of Dr. Martin as an author on the
manuscript. Dr. Chandler stated that, due to prior collaborations, it was a longstanding policy to
include Dr. Martin on all publications coming out of Dr. Chandler's laboratory. Dr. Martin's
laboratory had a reciprocal agreement, he added. Dr. Perry stated that he did not feel that Dr.
Martin was a qualified author on this particular paper since he had not made a significant
contribution to the work being published. Dr. Chandler replied that Dr. Perry did not have the
right to question the policy of a laboratory in which he had worked as an invited guest. Dr. Perry
maintained his position that Dr. Martin did not belong as an author on the paper and further
stated that if Dr. Chandler insisted on including Dr. Martin's name, then, as first author, Dr. Perry
would not allow the paper to be submitted. Dr. Chandler responded, “Well, you can withdraw
your name, but the work was done here in my laboratory and we plan to submit the paper for
publication.”
Questions
1. What do you think of the reciprocal agreement between Dr. Martin's and Dr.
Chandler's laboratories? Were Dr. Perry's concerns legitimate?
2. Dr. Perry was a tenured professor at a different institution from Dr. Chandler's.
Under these circumstances it may have been relatively easy for him to voice his
concerns to Dr. Chandler. What difficulties might a postdoctoral or graduate
student in Dr. Chandler's lab have in handling this situation? How might those
difficulties be overcome?
3. The results of this project are significant and provide a novel insight into the
field that could prove beneficial to many investigators in the area. Therefore,
should Dr. Perry compromise with Dr. Chandler so that the paper can be
2
Research and Scholarship Integrity Program
Small Group Discussion 2
Credit Attribution
Natural Sciences
promptly published? Which consideration -- authorship or publication -- is more
important in the advancement of science?
4. What do you think of Dr. Chandler's statement in the concluding sentence of the
case? Would it be appropriate for Dr. Chandler to proceed with publishing the
paper? What are Dr. Perry's and Dr. Chandler's rights with respect to the data
and the publication of the data?
5. Assume that Dr. Martin in fact reviewed and commented on all drafts of the
paper in question. Could this contribution to the effort be significant enough to
merit authorship?
3
Research and Scholarship Integrity Program
Small Group Discussion 2
Credit Attribution
Natural Sciences
Adapted from Ben Goldacre, I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated than That
(London: Fourth Estate, 2014), 25-28.
How Myths Are Made
Guardian, 8 August 2009
Much of what we cover in this column revolves around the idea of a 'systematic review,
where the literature is surveyed methodically, following a predetermined protocol, to find all
the evidence on a given question. As we saw in another column, for example, the Soil
Association would rather have the freedom to selectively reference only research that supports
their case, rather than the totality of the evidence.
Two disturbing news stories demonstrate how this rejection of best practice can also cut
to the core of academia.
Firstly, the Public Library of Science in the US this week successfully used a court
order to obtain a full trail of evidence showing how pharmaceutical company Wyeth employed
commercial 'ghost writers' to produce what were apparently academic review articles,
published in academic journals, under the names of academic authors. These articles, published
between 1998 and 2005, stressed the benefits of taking hormones to protect against problems
like heart disease, dementia and ageing skin, while playing down the risks. Stories like this,
sadly, are commonplace; but to understand the full damage that these distorted reviews can do,
we need to understand a little about the structure of academic knowledge.
In a formal academic paper, every claim is referenced to another academic paper: either
an original research paper, describing a piece of primary research in a laboratory or on patients;
or a review paper which summarises an area. This convention gives us an opportunity to study
how ideas spread, and myths grow, because in theory you could trace who references what, and
how, to see an entire belief system evolve from the original data. Such an analysis was
published this month in the British Medical Journal, and it is quietly seminal.
Steven Greenberg from Harvard Medical School focused on an arbitrary hypothesis: the
specifics are irrelevant to us, but his case study was the idea that a protein called β amyloid is
produced in the skeletal muscle of patients who have a condition called 'inclusion body
myositis'. Hundreds of papers have been written on this, with thousands of citations between
them. Using network theory, Greenberg produced a map of interlocking relationships, to
demonstrate who cited what.
By looking at this network of citations he could identify the intersections with the most
incoming and outgoing traffic. These are the papers with the greatest 'authority' (Google uses
the same principle to rank webpages in its search results). All of the ten most influential papers
expressed the view that β amyloid is produced in the muscle of patients with IBM. In reality,
this is not supported by the totality of the evidence. So how did this situation arise?
Firstly, we can trace how basic laboratory work was referenced. Four lab papers did
find β amyloid in IBM patients' muscle tissue, and these were among the top ten most
influential papers. But looking at the whole network, there were also six very similar primary
research papers, describing similar lab experiments, which are isolated from the interlocking
web of citation traffic, meaning that they received no or few citations. These papers,
4
Research and Scholarship Integrity Program
Small Group Discussion 2
Credit Attribution
Natural Sciences
unsurprisingly, contained data that contradicted the popular hypothesis. Crucially, no other
papers refuted or critiqued this contradictory data. Instead, those publications were simply
ignored.
Using the interlocking web of citations, you can see how this happened. A small
number of review papers funneled large amounts of traffic through the network, with 63
percent of all citation paths flowing through one review paper, and 95 per cent of all citation
paths flowing through just four review papers by the same research group. These papers acted
like a lens, collecting and focusing citations — and scientists' attention — on the papers
supporting the hypothesis, in testament to the power of a well-received review paper.
But Greenberg went beyond just documenting bias in what research was referenced in
each review paper. By studying the network, in which review papers are themselves cited by
future research papers, he showed how these reviews exerted influence beyond their own
individual readerships, and distorted the subsequent discourse, by setting a frame around only
some papers.
And by studying the citations in detail, he went further again. Some papers did cite
research that contradicted the popular hypothesis, for example, but distorted it. One laboratory
paper reported no β amyloid in three of five patients with IBM, and its presence in only a 'few
fibres' in the remaining two patients; but three subsequent papers cited these data, saying that
they confirmed' the hypothesis. This is an exaggeration at best, but the power of the social
network theory approach is to show what happened next: over the following ten years, these
three supportive citations were the root of 7,848 supportive citation paths, producing chains of
false claim in the network, amplifying the distortion.
Similarly, many papers presented aspects of the β amyloid hypothesis as a theory — but
gradually, through incremental mis-statement, in a chain of references, these papers came to be
cited as if they proved the hypothesis as a fact, with experimental evidence, which they did not.
This is the story of how myths and misapprehensions arise. Greenberg might have
found a mess, but instead he found a web of systematic and self-reinforcing distortion, resulting
in the creation of a myth, ultimately retarding our understanding of a disease, and so harming
patients. That's why systematic reviews are important, that's why incremental mis-statement
matters, and that's why ghost writing should be stopped.
Questions
1. Goldberg argues that highly cited papers act as a lens through which later work is
evaluated and interpreted, thus biasing and possibly distorting the body of knowledge. Is
this a flaw in the publication system or is it part of the normal functioning of research?
2. Why might particular papers be more highly cited than others? Is it an indicator of a
paper’s quality?
3. Arguably the paper that challenged the hypothesis was misrepresented in the subsequent
three citations. How might this have happened?
4. What can researchers do to resolve or mitigate the distorting effects of highly cited
research? What can be changed in how research is structured?
5. Goldberg briefly mentions ghostwriting. What is it? Does it threaten good research and
scholarship practices? Why?
5